Is morality relative?

Is morality relative?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

If you believe in God, no. If you don't believe in God, yes.

No

youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

Pretty much this.

Objective moral law requires a law giver.

Morality is a set of standards and norms. The morality of something is then always judged relative to these norms.
Morality will never be objective. If we simply deal in absolutes then it's a step closer to objectivity but we don't do that.
We put weight of actions we try to judge and thus make it even more relative.
Ask yourself this.
On a scale from 0 to 10 with 10 being immorality incarnate, where would murdering a person fit in or any other action deemed immoral.
Then ask yourself what exactly would be a 10 on such a scale?
The (((Media))) has been shilling that the Holocaust is the most atrocious crime ever to face humanity. So is the Holocaust a 10 on this scale?
But what if something more cruel is to happen?
Will that be the new ten? And what if it is topped again by something else?
Morality can not achieve objectivity.

bump

>"Do you believe in Cosmic Fascism?"
Even if you did, why would you be beholden to that fat faggot?

first post best post

Yes. Morals are more like opinions than facts. Nietzsche was right

In practice, no. The golden rule pretty much sets the standard for morality and any religion who shits on it (i'm looking at you Islam) is effectively immoral.

In theory yes, just like in theory everyone is an agnostic but that's a pointless circlejerk philosophical discussion that leads nowhere.

The fact that there is more than one religion out there and that they're all equally true means that your morality becomes relative by arbitrarily choosing one of them as your moral foundation.

You're misunderstanding.

The post would be better written as "if God exists, morality is objective" since personal belief has no relevance whatsoever to whether morality is subjective.

Even if there was only one religion to ever exist, but God was not real then it would be subjective.

Morality is limited to communities, regions and cultures. What's moral in in one group isn't moral in another.

Ethics crosses borders and every man should live by an ethical code, and study the philosophy of ethics.

Yes morality is subjective, however there are benefits to establishing an objective morality for a group. It creates cohesion and rules that are self enforced.

For example Fight Club, even though FC didn't have a religion or morality, one could argue that it would be immoral to continue fighting after someone goes limp or taps out.

>Is morality relative?

This statement of yours is immoral.

I'd as you to prove me wrong, but you won't be able to, because defining morality is like trying to define beauty.

No, God is a subject since it still has a mind.
Morality (so far discovered) cannot exist without a mind - all morality is subjective.

>morality is like trying to define beauty.
in yet every documented society on the planet views senseless murder of another human being immoral. what exactly does morality have anything to do with beauty standards, which are completely rooted in culture. Beauty standards are akin to ice cream flavor preference. Are you equating human morality to ice cream preference you delusional queer

What if that mind is the source and only real objectivity?

I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. We can only speculate.

That is true, but it would for all practical purposes be objective from a human standpoint since you could also argue that God's feelings are basically universal absolutes anyway.

I guess we should ask can it be objective rather than subjective.

For example is there a good precedent that allows murder to be justified as well as stealing? If yes would you yourself be willing to steal and have your goods taken on a constant basis. Then include that your life can be taken by someone because it would essentially be a right to murder.

Still can't be objective since that mind literally is a bias. Objective is named so because it's mind-less, e.g. objects in reality, what actually is there, as opposed to a mind's interpretation of what is there, which has bias.
As soon as something starts to have opinion, or reasoning, then it defies being objective.

The problem with defining morality is that all peoples agree that morality = deciding what is right and wrong, but their definitions of right and wrong can be wildly different.

For instance, in the West, killing an innocent child is wrong, because the child is innocent. However, in certain Muslim communities, that child might not be considered innocent because the child isn't a Muslim, so killing the child would be "right".

Another example would be someone believing that it would be moral to kill x group of people to put them out of their misery, while that said group of people would perhaps think the same of their would be killers.

To answer your question, morality is objective, but peoples across the world place their own restrictions on said morality.

From a human standpoint it would not be objective since that is the way that we've defined these terms.
A mind is a subject, and a subject is opposed to being an object, or objective.

Otherwise you've got this sliding scale of objectivity where you can somehow try and create a hierarchy of who is more "objective" which would be ludicrous because these things are absolute, they are not discrete.

>morality

>To answer your question, morality is objective, but peoples across the world place their own restrictions on said morality.

So morality is objective, but cultural relativism is an actual thing. I think people get lost in translation between cultural and moral relativism. What people are really defending are cultural norms. It's just a misunderstanding of terms

What if this mind is the source of reality itself?

That still doesn't matter if we're going by the Merriam-Webster definition in the context that we're using it:

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

Even if we are talking about a mind that is the source of the rest of reality, morality is still coming from that mind, which is a bias.

Unless you say that God is an object and not a mind, you can't have its will be objective.

If you think another definition of objective is more suitable, sure, but be sure to define what that is.

yes, and subjective too obviously

Is it morality that keeps this scorpion from eating its young? If not then what?

>in yet every documented society on the planet views senseless murder of another human being immoral.

That is nothing more than an observation of the behavioral traits of social animals, you fucking moron.

>SOCIAL ANIMALS TEND TO SHUN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AS A MEANS OF FURTHERING COOPERATION, WHICH BOOSTS THE CHANCES OF SURVIVAL FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP!

No shit, Sherlock. Social animals evolved to live in groups. So, quite naturally, neurological formations evolved in social animal to not only promote cooperative and empathetic behaviors, but also to suppress anti-social tendencies.

However, what struck me as the most retarded part of what you said is this:

>in yet every documented society on the planet

Wut.

>EVERYWHERE SOCIAL ANIMALS ARE, SOCIAL BEHAVIORS WHICH PROMOTE SURVIVAL CAN BE FOUND!

Good work there, Sherlock.

I like how you try to make morality a human-centered thing, when it is nothing more than a primal instinct found in all social animals. Most other social animals have a moratorium on killing members of their group for no fucking reason, as that harms their chances of survival. All social animals suppress desires to kill others in their group, this is not a human-specific trait.

And before you bitch about animals killing each other for no reason even when they are close, guess what? We do that shit too.

>have anything to do with beauty standards

Beauty preferences are subjective, and so are moral ones.

For instance, describe to me WHY a sunset is beautiful WITHOUT describing what a sunset consists of... you won't be able to. All you'll tell me about is the colors and other shit, but that just tells me what makes up a sunset, not WHY it is beautiful.

>culture

Social constructs built upon primal social instincts. That is all culture and other things are.... fucking nothing.

>Are you equating human morality

I am saying that human morality is the same as every other social animal.